"What Does the Ninth Amendment Have to do With Individual Rights?"

One day the founders were chilling, smoking a jay and sipping some whiskey discussing the matters of the nation.

Then, Jefferson said this "Dude, what if in 200 years people in this country go full on retarded and misconstrue the purpose of the constitution as something that gave rights to people instead of a document protecting natural rights and limiting the federal or state governments from controlling their citizens?"

Benny Franks was all like "Dude, who cares I'm going to an orgy, do whatever you want to stop that from happening."

And thus the 9th amendment was made.



Do I win a cookie?

With regards to the Hate Speech arguements:

I believe the term you are looking for is "encitement to riot".

"Hate speech" is free speech. It is not (or at least, SHOULD not be) illegal. I, as a white male, have the same right to use the "N-word" that Snoop Dogg, an African-American male, has. Of course I have to take responsibility for the outcome of MY usage of the word because it IS offensive based on the history of it's use in America. But, I can use none the less. What IS against the law is "encitement to riot". Like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, using words with the explicit intent of "riling" the people up to cause harm or damage is where the banning of so called "hate speech" comes in. If I were to don a white pointy hood or a red and white arm band with a swastika on it and then scream and "preach" to listeners about how "all the (N-word)'s should be killed or sent back to Africa" then you would have a reasonable expectation that I was trying to get the listeners to carry out the killings or what have you. THAT is enticement to riot and is a crime. Granted, that particular example of "enticement" INCLUDES "hate speech", it is not the use of the "N-word" that causes the riot, it is the CONTEXT of the use of the "N-word".

--Apex

legal disclaimer:
"The preceding example is just an example and does not reflect the true thoughts or opinions of the poster!"

Added just in case, I don't want people thinking I truly am an insensitive jerk!!!...lol

Here is a link to a brief history of the 9th Amendment with a few examples of it's application (including some SCOTUS cases).

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Here is a snippet form the discussion:

the Ninth Amendment is an outgrowth of a disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the importance of attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. When the Constitution was initially drafted by the Framers in 1787, it contained no Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, who generally opposed ratification because they believed that the Constitution conferred too much power on the federal government, supported a Bill of Rights to serve as an additional constraint against despotism. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights because they believed that any enumeration of fundamental liberties was unnecessary and dangerous.

The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individual liberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Text of the Amendment :
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" meaning that any rights given to the people in the doc shall not be infringed and prohibits others from denying said rights to all people who are under it's jurisdiction.

"Meaning basically that, just because a right is not listed in the Constitution does not mean you don't have that right"

Sounds to me the student should grade the critique of the teacher and hand it back in.

The Constitution is very simple and straightforward. In it, the PEOPLE give certain rights to the GOVERNMENT, not the other way around. The Bill of Rights was an add-on, that they were leery of doing, knowing how corrupt governments act. Having seen firsthand how tyranny gets slowly imposed, they were well aware that tyrants want to make it out that THEY are LETTING the people have certain rights, when the reality is, the PEOPLE have all the power, and they are letting the govt have certain rights, and NO MORE. This is what everyone seems to mix up.

They specifically did not want the Bill of Rights to be construed as some "rights" the GOVT was giving to YOU. You already have all those rights, and all others, given by God. This is exactly what the ninth amendment says.

the ninth amendment is a key to unlocking the puzzle of how we as americans can straighten out the mess we are in.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

it boils down to are you a 'citizen' of the united states or are you a 'people' of the united states? WE THE PEOPLE established the constitution and set up the structure of the government. THE PEOPLE were acting as sovereigns at the time they established the constitution. there was no power greater than THE PEOPLE. the civil laws are for citizens. people who allow the government power over them by recognizing the courts and judges as its representatives of that law agree they are citizens by compliance. PEOPLE are above civil law. for example the patriot act doesnt apply to THE PEOPLE but it does apply to citizens because it is a civil law. it is a matter of perception and understanding your place in the real world.

WE THE PEOPLE have to begin demanding compliance by the representatives and senators to the constitution by stating ' WE THE PEOPLE request or demand' that you perform a certain action. if a citizen requests this action then the representatives can ignore the request because they are under the united states civil laws and power while THE PEOPLE are the true sovereigns in this nation. it is a subtle difference but it is there and it is very real.

1215.org

Originally posted by MaxNormal
Your individual rights are never above the rights of the whole. You do not have the right to do anything if it violates the rights of the group/whole/county/state/country.

Interesting thread and this comment screamed at me. This is the same premise used by Mao and in fact it's the opposite of what is meant by the 9th Amendment. Unless our individual rights trump all others, we become like China or the former Soviet Union.

When the rights of the whole outweigh the rights of the individual, freedom is not possible. Even a middle class is not possible as history has shown over and over again. You end up with a ruling class and a subservient class and no bridge between the two.

Failure to understand that basic principle negates everything that made us free and great.

Any individual right that does not interfere with the rights of another individual must remain sacrosanct or any hope of freedom ends. The process of removing our rights has begun and those teaching in our universities are at the forefront, deeming themselves a part of the ruling class.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It also means that we have more rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights, and just because they aren't listed doesn't make them any less valid than those that are. (layman's terms)

That is exactly right and to go further it states that the the rights enumerated within the Constitution; specifically all Rights listed in the prior eight amendments should in no way be see as positive rights. Or as you have stated in laymen's terms, those rights listed as protected are not granted but protected along with numerous rights an individual may hold.

Madison's contentions while presenting the Bill of Rights shows us that there was a general fear for and against having such Bills of Rights. In his speech to Congress he states "''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration." Knowing that people in power will construe and twist that very power he further explains that "by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure."

This is exactly where the Ninth Amendment comes in. This inclusion was to guard against that very thought that because certain rights were not listed that they reside in the hands of the Government to be doled out as it sees fit. Justice Goldberg further expounded on the implications of the Ninth Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut. He states "...the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.''

ETA: This thread is interesting because we are seeing the differing philosophy in terms of the Individual and the Collective. What is telling in my opinion is the collectivist all claim that the rights of the whole trump the rights of the Individual, but as Jean Paul has pointed out, there cannot be a collective without the Individual.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


After further review of this clause in the Ninth Amendment I believe that there is not a limitation on the amount of rights or the type of rights granted by the Federal government. The Constitution enumerated a number of rights through the bill of rights later adopted. I can understand why many would perceive that rights not listed could still be conceivably granted by the Federal government, even where not articulated in the bill of rights. The right to vote is one example of such right granted by the federal government that overpowered states rights. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was an act of legislation establishing rights of citizens to participate in elections. Previous to this, some states had passed laws requiring literacy tests before casting a vote. Often minorities without any education were unable to vote.

In conclusion, I would have to say that the federal government does have constitutional authority make standardized rights of individuals apply to states. This active interpretation of the Ninth amendment clause though is still limited in function that it can only be used to instill or clarify more rights of the people of the nation. I find no information contained therein to believe that this clause is there to limit any right of a state. If used appropriately, this clause will allow for the necessary corrective rights of citizens in this nation, where states have gone astray and reduced the rights of the state citizen.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


My only contention with your post is your assertion that the Voter's Rights Act of 1965 gave citizen's the "right" to vote. This is false and is why many don't see the dangers of viewing the Bill of Rights as positive rights. The only thing that the act did was enforce anti-discriminatory laws and forced states to align their voting eligibility against the Constitution. Specifically the act states "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

There is no federal and/or Constitutional "right" to vote as that right is retained by the people via the Ninth Amendment. Since there is no enumeration of power to regulate voting (except for few clauses and now amendments that ensure voters are not turned away solely based upon religious test, age [18], sex, religion, creed, etc.), it falls to the Tenth Amendment and is deferred to the States. Further, as I have explained before, all eligibility is determined at the State level. When you vote say for a Senator or Representative you are doing so at the State level even though the office is a Federal office. There are no national elections.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


It is extremely important that we are careful to distinguish rights from privilege. Rights - unalienable rights - by their very nature are natural and preexist government. The so called "right" to vote is, in truth, really just a privilege, and as you pointed out, available only to citizens, where rights proper, or natural rights, are not exclusively the province of citizens, but belong to all people everywhere.

Voting for government officials cannot preexist government as rights do, and necessarily come in the establishment of, and after that establishment. They are privileges granted by the government established by the people. Rights are not privileges. Privileges are something that can be granted and taken away. Unalienable means precisely that; non-transferable.

Further, I would argue that, in my opinion, voting is nothing more than a distraction. It gives the appearance of "citizen" participation, but is far from it. Indeed, modern educators are inclined to teach their students that it is the ability to vote that "makes us free", but this is demonstrably false, and "free elections" can take place within a dictatorship just as easily as they can take place in a democracy, and pure democracy can often times lead to the worst kind of dictatorship. Out of democracy rises tyranny. The tyranny of the majority, or worse, the well oiled minority, is hardly the foundation for freedom.

The Framers of both the federal Constitution, and virtually all state constitutions, established republics in an attempt to restrain the tyranny of democracy. What they were trying to avoid was the very real problem of voters whimsically and capriciously voting away rights. As is evidenced in this thread, with calls to ban "hate" speech, people are not as protective of rights when they view them as other people rights, and seem to lack the wisdom to understand that erasing one person, or group of peoples rights makes room for the erasure of their own rights. Hence the profound problem with "civil rights" which should be correctly understood to be legal rights.

The Ninth Amendment, as are all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, are limiting Amendments. They are acts of prohibition. The Ninth Amendment limits the federal government, and it should be understood - especially in light of the fact that so many erroneously assume that they should be able to enter a state court and cite the federal Constitution at their pleasure - that virtually all the state constitutions have a section in their declaration of rights that echos the sentiments of the Ninth Amendment. In this regard, it is not very useful to consider the Ninth Amendment as being some sort of limiting document on states. The states have their own limiting document in place that also acknowledges that enumerated rights should not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people.

Where the states have gone astray, then the individual who has wound up suffering the disparagement or denial of a right(s) because of that are better served relying upon their own State Constitution to find a remedy in their redress of grievances. I currently reside in California, so to give as just one example, the similar language of the Ninth Amendment, I present to you Article I, Section 24 of that Constitution:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

The rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance. In both the federal, and the Constitution for the State of California the use of the word "retained" should be given significance. Retained, in this regard, means to "keep possession of", as opposed to "keep in mind" or "remember", or "to hire" as in retain an attorney. Rights are retained by the people, which is to say they hold possession of their own rights, and they keep those rights at all times.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Here is a question for you...do you believe having a say in who your representative is, should be a right and not a privilege? I do understand your point about voting rights not being a right. But there is also the right to life, yet we put people to death for crimes. If it is inalienable then should it not always be retained by that person? Or is a person allowed to forfeit their right to life when a bunch of other people decide that for them? Rights, privileges, and inalienable rights can be a confusing subject when we start analyzing if we really have any. Nearly every right, be it inalienable or a privilege can be taken away by someone else currently or through some piece of legislation.

I agree with your interpretation of rights and privileges. In my post I referred to voting as a right (while I understand it can be taken away) it is none-the-less a right until taken away. The same with life, it is a right until you commit a crime warranting capital punishment. Liberty is a right, that can be taken away through incarceration. Freedom of speech is limited, and a person that is free to speak just has to do it in the proper venue, not on any public or private property in which you haven't obtained permissions first. Rights are a weird thing, because none are truly, really secure. All of them can be overlooked and you need an attorney to enforce infringement on your rights normally. What kind of rights are those? Certainly, not inalienable rights.

The most crushing part about rights, is that so often we violate another persons rights. Inalienable rights at that. You would think we would have it down to a science after 200 years. The fact is there are no rights period, they are all privileges, even your right to a firearm. Even the second amendment is a privilege. Rights are what we declare them to be, they reflect our values as a nation. Today we might trade in the right to privacy for security, and tomorrow we may want to give up our right to security and exchange it for a pizza. Is being secure a right? Is it a privilege? It is hard to tell.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

Here is a question for you...do you believe having a say in who your representative is, should be a right and not a privilege?

The term "representative" demands such, does it not? This is why originally "Representatives" were termed as such, and in this bicameral legislative body, "Senators" were termed as such, because until the passage of the odious 17th Amendment, Senators were not elected by popular election, but instead were chosen by state legislatures.

I do understand your point about voting rights not being a right. But there is also the right to life, yet we put people to death for crimes.

Arguably cruel and unusual punishment. At this moment, we are facing a reversal of a previous Supreme Court ruling that had deemed capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment.

If it is inalienable then should it not always be retained by that person? Or is a person allowed to forfeit their right to life when a bunch of other people decide that for them?

A rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to derive the right to keep and bear thorns. A porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to derive the right to keep and bear needles and a skunk does not need permission from the state to spew its stink. These are quite natural acts of self defense. However, thorns do not prevent you or I from plucking roses, and needles on a porcupine do not prevent you or I from shooting that porcupine, and the odor of a skunk does not keep them from becoming road kill. Rights will be trampled upon. This is the primary and lawful foundation for a just government.

As I stated earlier, if you and I and TOA, and projectvxn, and ownbestenemy and all others have the right to self defense, and we do, it follows that we have the right to come together to form an organization towards that same end.

Just governments concern themselves with the protection of individual rights. All else is tyranny of some form or another.

Rights, privileges, and inalienable rights can be a confusing subject when we start analyzing if we really have any. Nearly every right, be it inalienable or a privilege can be taken away by someone else currently or through some piece of legislation.

The world is gray to those who refuse to separate the black and the white of gray, and muddy waters will remain muddy waters as long as we keep stirring it up. No rights can ever be taken away. Privileges can, and every parent knows that, but never rights. If you are robbed your right to retain your property was not taken away, it was trampled upon, and either denied, and/or disparaged.

I agree with your interpretation of rights and privileges. In my post I referred to voting as a right (while I understand it can be taken away) it is none-the-less a right until taken away. The same with life, it is a right until you commit a crime warranting capital punishment. Liberty is a right, that can be taken away through incarceration.

We are not in agreement over capital punishment, but in terms of restricting the liberty of those who have willingly trampled all over the right(s) of other people, it is their criminality that is being addressed, and in terms of rights, they certainly did not have the right to murder, steal, rape, or cause any other harm to another, but did so anyway. This criminality needs to be dealt with. However, in dealing with criminality, it is not uncommon to show compassion to the criminal and offer a contract of probation in an attempt to convince this criminal their liberty is worth keeping and the way to do that is to respect the rights of other people. Failing that, incarceration becomes necessary.

To frame this handling of the criminal as some sort of ironic disparagement of a right is to misunderstand the purpose of redress of grievance, and remedy. We create governments in a just world to put justice back in when there is an absence of it. Justice is barely recognizable when present, yet glaringly so when absent.

Freedom of speech is limited, and a person that is free to speak just has to do it in the proper venue, not on any public or private property in which you haven't obtained permissions first.

This argument is often used to diminish the absoluteness of rights. However, all law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Freedom of speech is merely a phrase. It is not the principle behind the right. The principle is based upon no harm caused. Slander is not a right, it is not that the right to speak freely is hindered, it is that no one has the right to slander another. There are no restrictions on rights. Either it is a right, or it is not. It is really just that simple.

Much of the confusion comes from the belief that legislation is law, but it is not, it is merely evidence of law. The map is not the territory and the word is not the thing defined and a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. You cannot grow a crop and corn on a map, and that map can merely point to land where you may be able to grow a crop of corn. You can not drive the word automobile, and you can not smoke a picture of a pipe. Legislation, at best, can only point to the law, or do its best to describe it in a reasonable fashion.

Rights are a weird thing, because none are truly, really secure.

Sad but true.

The most crushing part about rights, is that so often we violate another persons rights. Inalienable rights at that. You would think we would have it down to a science after 200 years. The fact is there are no rights period, they are all privileges, even your right to a firearm.

They are rights, and we do not have it down to a science because we do not even look at the law as science. Hell, we barely accept scientific law as science, but we astoundingly refer to rights as the "laws of man". Rights are as natural as gravity is.

Rights are what we declare them to be, they reflect our values as a nation. Today we might trade in the right to privacy for security, and tomorrow we may want to give up our right to security and exchange it for a pizza. Is being secure a right? Is it a privilege? It is hard to tell.

'

Bad legislation does this, law never does. It is not hard to tell, law is self evident. Confusing legislation is the first clue it is not law. Thousands of pages of legislation is yet another clue that it is not law. Tautology is always true, but is also needlessly repetitive. Circumlocution of definition is not defining. A horse is a horse of course, of course, is tautological but does not define a horse.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Excellent reply. I know what you mean about rights are always right with or without the government involvement. I think law attempts to equalize the differences in opinions about where those rights start and stop. For instance, one man's right to self-defense might be extreme in nature, compared to what I may consider self-defense. Chasing someone down and killing them after being attacked, under the law, would not constitute self-defense. But to someone that takes their rights to the extreme they might have the belief if they did not kill them they might come back at a later time to harm them.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Excellent reply. I know what you mean about rights are always right with or without the government involvement. I think law attempts to equalize the differences in opinions about where those rights start and stop. For instance, one man's right to self-defense might be extreme in nature, compared to what I may consider self-defense. Chasing someone down and killing them after being attacked, under the law, would not constitute self-defense. But to someone that takes their rights to the extreme they might have the belief if they did not kill them they might come back at a later time to harm them.

Arguably, a person who is convinced that someone is going to kill them, has good reason to believe this. Preferably evidence of it. The person could do what you just described, and if he, or she, has actual evidence that supports the argument that their own murder was eminent, and they only acted in self defense, this may help them in their own defense.

If one asserts that they killed someone out of self defense, that assertion places burden of proof upon them. It is one thing to prove that at the moment of the attempted murder, a person killed them to prevent their own murder, and another thing entirely to argue that that moment of attempted murder hadn't happened yet, only the threat of of it. That threat, if provable, constitutes assault, and there is remedy made available under governments to handle that problem, without having to kill them just to have peace of mind. What I am saying is that if a person has made a credible threat of your murder down the road, that credible threat is a crime. It is assault. Again, the burden of proof is upon the one bringing about the charges, but in the circumstances you described, I would argue that having this person arrested for assault is much more lawful, and depending upon the facts of the case you described, killing the person who assaulted you with a threat of murder is probably not a lawful act.

If there is a reasonable remedy available that would make the killing of a future threat unnecessary, then killing that person is not lawful.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Hence why hate speech and racism should be banned because hate speech infringes upon the rights of another.

Explain to me how hate speech infringes upon the rights of others? Hate speech is just that: hateful speech. It does not harm anyone physically, will not harm anyone emotionally upon refusing to hear such speech, and does not affect their overall welfare as an individual capable of pursuing their own self-interests. While I will agree with the argument that hate-speech is collectivist, deplorable, and downright shameful, banning any form of speech is unconstitutional and inherently unjust.

Racism, as terrible as it is, cannot possibly be banned. You cannot force an individual's thoughts to be pure or acceptable. Until people start to realize that individuals are autonomous beings separate in their uniqueness and capability, racism will always persist.

If anothers right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which btw, is one of the founding principles of this nation means you cannot hide behind the 1st to deny people their rights as defined in the 9th.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


That doesn't make any sense at all.

How does speech deny life to others? You don't HAVE TO LISTEN to anyone you disagree with.

If you want thought crime and restriction on free speech and free thought there are plenty of nations you could move to that would accommodate you.

The 1st Amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT not the individual same as the 9th. The first amendment applies just as much to what you call "hate speech" as it does to all the other rosy stuff you'd feel better about.

Let me ask you something, does this hate speech ban work both ways? Do you like being able to call Republicans and anyone slightly right of Mao a Nazi? You seem to enjoy that rather hateful speech.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

That doesn't make any sense at all.

How does speech deny life to others? You don't HAVE TO LISTEN to anyone you disagree with.

If you want thought crime and restriction on free speech and free thought there are plenty of nations you could move to that would accommodate you.

Since you are obviously a US Army officer correct? If I posted saying that the military should all burn to the ground and had and revealed troop and detatchment locations I could hide behind the 1st while blatantly violating National Security protocol. That is how speech puts people in harms way. Remember when Geraldo announced on live tv troop placements early in the Iraqi theatre, he tried hiding behind the 1st when he did. That move comprised the cesurity and safety of like 2 batallions.

On a real and serious note, if you are in Theatre now, get home safe!

When I refer to the Tea Party and when they employ Nazi-isque tactics then yes, I will call them Nazi's. By doing so I am not threatening another's life or liberty, just attacking the person's politics is all. I have not ever once and will not ever wish death or ill will upon another.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I am not an officer. I am enlisted thank you very much.

You can tell me and everyone that wears a military uniform to go straight to hell if you want to. You can also feel free to reveal all of the troop movements you want. You have to get that information first. But let's say you do. And you report on it. What do YOU think should happen to you?

Me? nothing. Operational Security is in the hands of the military, not the press.

So long as you're not passing this info to the enemy in a deliberate fashion you have nothing to worry about.